meta user
network profile
| bio | website | ultracold.uchicago.edu/people |
|---|---|---|
| location | University of Chicago, IL | |
| age | 21 | |
| visits | member for | 1 year, 1 month |
| seen | 11 hours ago | |
| stats | profile views | 148 |
Physics, University of Chicago, James Franck Institute, 3rd Year Undergraduate.
Interests in experimental condensed matter [preferably hard condensed matter], statistical mechanics and mathematical physics.
http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=233197957&trk=tab_pro
|
May 29 |
comment |
Deriving the Angular Momentum Commutator Relations by using $\epsilon_{ijk}$ Identities Argue that (ijk) -> (xyz) and that the same answer holds for (jki) -> (yzx) etc. Changing the indices doesn't change the solution, for any permutation. You could write it out, explaining, or you could actually show the permutations are the same simply. |
|
May 26 |
answered | Deriving the Angular Momentum Commutator Relations by using $\epsilon_{ijk}$ Identities |
|
May 21 |
accepted | Inelastic Scattering and coherent scatterng |
|
May 13 |
awarded | Yearling |
|
Apr 13 |
awarded | Fanatic |
|
Feb 21 |
comment |
Supplements for Kittel's Solid State Physics? Condensed Matter Physics by Marder may also interest you, but I think his section on crystallography is tiny. |
|
Feb 21 |
answered | Supplements for Kittel's Solid State Physics? |
|
Feb 17 |
comment |
Rewriting Creation and Annihilation Operators Thanks so much for your help KDN. Awesome |
|
Feb 17 |
accepted | Rewriting Creation and Annihilation Operators |
|
Feb 17 |
comment |
Rewriting Creation and Annihilation Operators of course, it is 1. $$[a,a^{\dagger}]=1$$ |
|
Feb 17 |
comment |
Rewriting Creation and Annihilation Operators I'm afraid it doesn't. |
|
Feb 17 |
comment |
Rewriting Creation and Annihilation Operators Great call, hadn't even considered it in my foolishness. $$[p_{i},r_{j}]=[p_{i},r_{j}]=-i\hbar \delta_{ij}$$ $$[R_{i},\pi_{j}]=0$$ $$[\pi_{i},\pi_{j}]=-i \epsilon_{ij} m \hbar \omega_{c}=-i \epsilon_{ij} \frac{\hbar^{2}}{l_{b}^{2}}$$ $$[R_{i},R_{j}]=i \epsilon_{ij} l_{b}^{2}$$ $$[\rho_{i},\rho_{j}]=-i \epsilon_{ij} l_{b}^{2}$$ $$[\rho_{i},\pi_{j}]=i \hbar \delta_{ij}$$ $$[p_{i},\pi_{j}]=-i \hbar \frac{e}{c} \frac{\partial A_{j}}{\partial r_{i}}$$ $$[R_{i},r_{j}]=i \epsilon_{ij} l_{b}^{2}$$ $$[\rho_{i},r_{j}]=-i \epsilon_{ij} l_{b}^{2}$$ |
|
Feb 17 |
comment |
Rewriting Creation and Annihilation Operators For context, I am studying the quantum Hall Effect, integer and fractional, and this came up in my instructors online notes. I am unsure why you would rewrite this, and further what is the best way to approach it. To expand on my idea, I was thinking to expand $\pi$ to $\vec{\pi}=m\vec{v}=\vec{p}-\frac{q}{c}\vec{A}$ and perhaps try from there. |
|
Feb 17 |
asked | Rewriting Creation and Annihilation Operators |
|
Feb 12 |
answered | Projectile motion, canon vs cliff |
|
Feb 12 |
comment |
Projectile motion, canon vs cliff Working on this now. Also, the velocity of the ball at the top of the cliff is zero because if it were not, it would go higher than 85m; the question tells you it just reaches the top. |
|
Feb 12 |
answered | How can I understand work conceptually? |
|
Feb 12 |
comment |
Additional mass of block on inclined plane Thanks for showing your work Justin. In your original work I believe you did not cancel a factor of $g$ and did not evaluate the sine properly. The cloth is a ruse to get you to ignore friction effects. Friction problems of this caliber will usually tell you how to obtain friction or just give you a coefficient of friction. |
|
Feb 12 |
comment |
Additional mass of block on inclined plane Admittedly, bear is pretty good. |
|
Feb 12 |
answered | Additional mass of block on inclined plane |
